20 thoughts on “https://docs.google.com/document/d/19YEBLOLPZ3V1z8WAekgqQNjy3H33RtgX4ojl7tiGK08/edit?usp=sharing”

  2. Very interesting. Have you looked at the Fight with Someone move from Vincent Baker’s “Freebooting Venus” (and also AW:Dark Ages iirc). Somewhat similar concept but I think yours has a more granular, blow-by-blow feel.

  3. Marshall Brengle Thanks for reminding me about Freebooting Venus! I’d totally forgotten it existed and it’s got lots of interesting tech.

    I love the blind spending in Freebooting Venus and dark ages, but it requires a relatively deep dive into mechanics before you resurface into the fiction and synthesize the decisions you made into coherent description. That’s totally fine and cool, but I think what I’m shooting for here is to break up that dive into smaller chunks, so we spend as little time as possible outside of the fiction. (while maintaining a richness of mechanical decision-making.)

  4. How would the back-and-forth work? I assume that between each “spend” on the player’s part, the enemy makes a move back at them?  

    So like, I’ve got a spear and shield and 3 hold against an ogre.  I might 1) spend hold to put it where I want it (driving it back into corner with the low ceiling). Then the GM’s soft move is to use it’s grab something and fling it narrated as “it lunges at you with its big meaty fist, trying to grab on, what do you do?”  And then I could spend 1 hold to use the spear’s keep them at bay move?  

    Do I have to Defy Danger at that point?  Or can I just do it?

    If I just do it, the ogre jerks his hand back after you prick it with the spear, and then what?  Do I get to spend my last hold on run them through?  (Sort of feels like it.)  Or does the GM make another soft move?  Why or why not?  

    Regardless, it feels like 2 or 3 hold isn’t going to end many fights that are narrated at this level of detail. That makes 0 hold = surrender feel pretty harsh.  Have you considered just making them roll to Cross Swords again?  And then on a miss, that’s when you end up in a bad spot (with a “what do you do?” that quite possibly leads to flee/surrender)?

  5. Jeremy Strandberg Once you roll Cross blades and grab x hold, you’re right back in the conversation as normal. So yeah, typically that will look like players and GM making moves in a roughly turn-taking fashion.

    If you spend hold to use a weapon move (“keep them at bay,”) it just happens. It’s like the hold a druid gets to use the moves of their shapeshifted form.

    Not everything you do during a fight requires spending hold. You could even “hold them at bay” with a spear without spending hold–in which case you’d be defying danger as normal.

    As far as the amount of hold and the pacing of when you must submit/retreat, I think it’s gotta be tested.

    My goals would be to give enough hold to conclude minor fights, but that any serious encounter would involve multiple rounds of retreating, regrouping, changing the situation.

    Maybe it needs to be clearer that “retreat” doesn’t mean “you lose.” You just need to fall back and come at things a different way.

    Or maybe you retreat, but the ogre chases you down the old stone steps into the keep’s basement. You’ve been here before, so you lead it into an ambush where you can Cross blades again.

  7. Ah, gotcha. Picturing it like druid hold helps, thanks.

    I’m not sure how well that would work without some manner of non-hold-spending attack move. Maybe good ol’ Defy Danger would work? But if so, I think you might need to make that clearer in the move descriptions themselves.  

    For running out of hold, how about something like “When you run out of hold, your attack is spent. You must give ground and regain your footing before you Cross Blades again.”

  8. It’s interesting, but I don’t see it helping a sense of “back and forth” – wouldn’t it be more “wind up at the start of a battle and continue until you run out of fuel?” For back-and-forth, I would expect more proactive counter-moves or bidding by the GM.

    I have some questions about triggering moves, too:

    After the first roll, when can you roll this again to build up more hold? What stops you from just always revving the engine?

    What happens if you kick off a fight with a lousy roll and generate no hold? Seems like you need to start off with a baseline, at least.

  10. Running with Jeremy Strandberg​’s idea, what if you add an ability to give ground or some such to net one additional hold? This way you could have the battle ebb and flow while the player manages resources, preparing for a final strike.

  12. Aaron Griffin Hmm, my intent is that’s basically exactly what you’re doing when you run out of hold–you’re forced to give ground, but you can re-roll the move and get more hold when you re-engage.

    I do like the idea of giving characters some special ways to gain hold during a fight, though.

  13. Some examples of the interactive possibilities here:

    The rogue runs into battle against the ogre, rolls an 8, holds 2. They stay just out of reach, taunting the ogre, and creating a window for the Warrior to act. Rogue spends their 2 hold to give the Warrior +2 forward to cross blades. Rogue is then forced to retreat, but the Warrior enters the fray with +2 forward to their Cross blades roll.

    Or, rogue and warrior enter the fray at the same time, rogue holds 2, warrior holds 3.

    Warrior spends a hold to corner the ogre against a wall. Ogre brings its club down hard toward the warrior.

    Warrior makes to step out of the way (defy danger)

    Rogue gives the warrior an extra shove out of the way (spends 2 hold to give +2 forward.)

    Rogue is out of hold and forced to fall back, but the Warrior is now in a stronger position.

    If the fiction allows, the rogue can jump right back into the fight once they’ve recovered their bearings.

    To me, these multiple rounds of engagement and retreat seem more in line with the way fights happen in other media.

  14. Derek Guder If you roll a 6- to start with, you enter the fight on bad footing and have to fall back until you can change the scene somehow.

    The rogue sees this ogre guarding a pile of treasure, says, “I rush forward, blade drawn.” Rolls a 6 on Cross blades.

    GM: Ok, so the ogre meets your charge with more momentum that you can counter. It’s driving you back, giving you no good opportunity to attack. It’ll overpower you quickly if you don’t fall back.

    Rogue falls back, loses the ogre in the shadows. Waits for an opportunity, makes their move again. (Maybe crossing blades again, or maybe throwing a knife from the shadows.)

  15. Maybe considering changing the name of Cross Swords to something like Enter the Fray? Because it really isn’t resolving the crossing of swords or the dealing of blows… it’s establishing the initial disposition and poise that you have as an exchange begins.  

  16. This is pretty interesting. I’ve been thinking about these lines myself recently, but haven’t got a working prototype together just yet.

    I agree with the various questions and considerations: this is a bit tricky to parse. In particular, it seems like there could be some weirdness if the person who rolls poorest is most likely to withdraw and then get a second chance at a better roll.

    My initial sense is that a failure should lead to either no hold and “losing the initiative” (so another actor in the fight can now make a move against you, maybe even with automatic success), or give you 1 hold.

    I don’t love “hold” moves in general (they feel a bit weird to me), but I do like the potential for an ebb-and-flow here.

  17. Also: if you have seen Vincent Baker’s “swashbuckling game”, take a look there. He has a very similar (but even more conversational) approach to various types of conflicts in that playtest draft.

  18. Hm. I’m not really clear on what the actual penalty is for giving ground. Having the resource to spend is certainly interesting, but I don’t see it really feeding into a back-and-forth of other media any more than the vanilla Dungeon World experience is, since it’s normally so fueled by fiction and lacks any rigid initiative structure, anyway.

    Something feels like it’s missing, but maybe it’s just not clicking for me, yet.

  20. Yeah, it’s a Patreon thing. I only saw it because someone showed it to me. It’s like your concept, except without holds. Each person takes turns reading a prompt and asking a question.

Comments are closed.